IMDB Entry: here
Netflix?: not yet
My Rating (as a good movie): 4/5
OK, fair disclosure: I know a lot of people involved with this movie, so maybe I'm a bit biased. Nevertheless, I think that if you give this movie a chance, you'll be pleasantly surprised. It really shows what you can do with a good script, good acting, a lot of creativity, and very little money.
The movie opens at the funeral of Faith, who we learn was a devoutly Christian woman. After the funeral, we see her "wake up" in a Heaven that bears little resemblance to our preconceived notions. It appears to be a post-apocalyptic battlefield, and Faith immediately comes under fire. Without giving away any spoilers, I'll say she encounters some Biblical characters, both familiar and unfamiliar, and becomes involved in an epic struggle for the control of Heaven.
This is really low budget, independent moviemaking at its finest. The script is unique and the acting is good. There's genuine humor and genuine pathos. Although it was clearly made with limited funds, the production quality is surprisingly good. Luckily, Indiana and Illinois offered ample post-apocalyptic settings for the shoots.
I really hope to see more from these guys.
Monday, August 25, 2014
The Truth About Nikola Tesla
There's something on the internet called "Godwin's Law", which basically says that if an argument goes on long enough, someone will eventually bring up Hitler and/or the Nazis. Similarly, in any discussion involving limitless free energy, someone will eventually bring up Nikola Tesla - and probably the Nazis as well (to describe you, when you tell them what idiots they are).
First, let's examine who Nikola Tesla really was - in the real world, where we all live. Tesla was one of the most brilliant and iconoclastic inventors of the late 19th and early 20th century. He was born in the Austrian Empire in 1856 in what is now Croatia; however, he's ethnically Serbian, which is why he's on modern day Serbia's 100 dinar bill.
His research focused on electricity - specifically high voltage and high frequency electricity. His most significant single contribution is arguably the realization that alternating current "AC" is a much more efficient way to distribute electrical power than direct current "DC", which was favored by Edison. This led to a protracted argument with Edison, which Tesla eventually won. The key victory was when Tesla and Westinghouse won the contract to supply the lighting for the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893.
A fight he never really won was his fight to get credit for the invention of radio. Tesla lectured about the possibility of using electromagnetic waves to transmit information as far back as 1893, and he designed a remote-controlled boat in 1898, which he tried to sell to the government. In 1900, Tesla patented a "system of transmitting electrical energy" and "an electrical transmitter". When Marconi claimed to have "invented" radio in 1901, Tesla challenged him in court. The courts issued a series of contradictory rulings, but whatever the legal standing, history remembers Marconi rather than Tesla as the father of radio. This arguably helped trigger the bitterness that characterized Tesla's later life.
Tesla was obsessed with the idea of transmitting power using high frequency electromagnetic waves, and he designed and built an enormous tower to do so, called the "Wardenclyffe Tower" to do so. There's nothing impossible or mysterious about this concept. It's just that it's not economically viable. Imagine if you had a bar that served beer by spraying it out of a sprinkler and then you would drink whatever you could catch in your glass. It would be a lot of fun, but the bar could only make money if they either got their beer for free or the charge one hell of a lot for the glass. It's the same way with transmitting power. Most of the power would simply radiate away into space. It would only work if electricity were too cheap to bother metering.
Tesla had other ideas for for energy, none of which would have worked. In 1901, Tesla filed a patent for an "Apparatus for the utilization of radiant energy". This was simply an antenna designed to capture ambient electromagnetic energy. The problem is that this energy doesn't exist at a level that would be useful in any way. Nevertheless, generations of free energy enthusiasts have latched onto this as one of Tesla's many contributions that have been lost or were stolen from us. Of course, it hasn't gone anywhere. All the drawings are still there at the patent office. They simply don't work.
Tesla's ideas go beyond free energy. Late in life, he proposed the idea of a particle beam weapon, which he referred to as "Teleforce". Like his free energy device, all the drawing still exist, and also like the free energy device, it simply doesn't work.
Adding to Tesla's mystique is the fact that upon his death, the FBI order the seizure of all of his personal papers. It's likely that the FBI believed Tesla's claims about his particle beam weapons, and seized his papers in the interest of national security. This has fueled decades of speculation about what was in the writings; however, given the nature of the things that are known, it's highly unlikely there were any major secrets in the lost material.
The fact is, everything Tesla did is well understood - not only in light of modern physics, but in terms of physics at the time. In contrast, his more outlandish claims would require a significant modification of physics as we understand it.
It's unfortunate that someone who made as many genuine contributions to our lives as Nikola Tesla is instead remembered by so many for his more outrageous and unsubstantiated claims.
First, let's examine who Nikola Tesla really was - in the real world, where we all live. Tesla was one of the most brilliant and iconoclastic inventors of the late 19th and early 20th century. He was born in the Austrian Empire in 1856 in what is now Croatia; however, he's ethnically Serbian, which is why he's on modern day Serbia's 100 dinar bill.
His research focused on electricity - specifically high voltage and high frequency electricity. His most significant single contribution is arguably the realization that alternating current "AC" is a much more efficient way to distribute electrical power than direct current "DC", which was favored by Edison. This led to a protracted argument with Edison, which Tesla eventually won. The key victory was when Tesla and Westinghouse won the contract to supply the lighting for the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893.
A fight he never really won was his fight to get credit for the invention of radio. Tesla lectured about the possibility of using electromagnetic waves to transmit information as far back as 1893, and he designed a remote-controlled boat in 1898, which he tried to sell to the government. In 1900, Tesla patented a "system of transmitting electrical energy" and "an electrical transmitter". When Marconi claimed to have "invented" radio in 1901, Tesla challenged him in court. The courts issued a series of contradictory rulings, but whatever the legal standing, history remembers Marconi rather than Tesla as the father of radio. This arguably helped trigger the bitterness that characterized Tesla's later life.
Tesla was obsessed with the idea of transmitting power using high frequency electromagnetic waves, and he designed and built an enormous tower to do so, called the "Wardenclyffe Tower" to do so. There's nothing impossible or mysterious about this concept. It's just that it's not economically viable. Imagine if you had a bar that served beer by spraying it out of a sprinkler and then you would drink whatever you could catch in your glass. It would be a lot of fun, but the bar could only make money if they either got their beer for free or the charge one hell of a lot for the glass. It's the same way with transmitting power. Most of the power would simply radiate away into space. It would only work if electricity were too cheap to bother metering.
Tesla had other ideas for for energy, none of which would have worked. In 1901, Tesla filed a patent for an "Apparatus for the utilization of radiant energy". This was simply an antenna designed to capture ambient electromagnetic energy. The problem is that this energy doesn't exist at a level that would be useful in any way. Nevertheless, generations of free energy enthusiasts have latched onto this as one of Tesla's many contributions that have been lost or were stolen from us. Of course, it hasn't gone anywhere. All the drawings are still there at the patent office. They simply don't work.
Tesla's ideas go beyond free energy. Late in life, he proposed the idea of a particle beam weapon, which he referred to as "Teleforce". Like his free energy device, all the drawing still exist, and also like the free energy device, it simply doesn't work.
Adding to Tesla's mystique is the fact that upon his death, the FBI order the seizure of all of his personal papers. It's likely that the FBI believed Tesla's claims about his particle beam weapons, and seized his papers in the interest of national security. This has fueled decades of speculation about what was in the writings; however, given the nature of the things that are known, it's highly unlikely there were any major secrets in the lost material.
The fact is, everything Tesla did is well understood - not only in light of modern physics, but in terms of physics at the time. In contrast, his more outlandish claims would require a significant modification of physics as we understand it.
It's unfortunate that someone who made as many genuine contributions to our lives as Nikola Tesla is instead remembered by so many for his more outrageous and unsubstantiated claims.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Phantasm IV: Oblivion (1998)
IMDB: here
My rating (as a bad movie): 5/5
Netflix: No
Wow, just... wow.
The first Phantasm was a classic. No one's quite sure why, because let's face it, the plot was pretty silly, but for some reason, it was just iconic. The second and third were OK, nothing great, but entertaining.
This one was clearly conceived as the magnum opus, where everything would be "explained". Of course that's not what happens...
The first problem is of course to get out of the certain doom at the end of the last movie. If you recall, Mike (still called "boy" in his mid-30s) is in the process of being changed into some sort of hybrid silver ball/alien thingy, and Reggie is pinned to a wall by like a hundred of the killer spheres. Mike apparently just walked away, and the Tall Man inexplicably lets Reggie go - and then spends the rest of the movie trying to kill him. I don't know, maybe he's like a cat playing with its food.
After that, it's just a confusing jumble. The main thread follows Mike as he develops super powers and travels back in time to find the origin of the Tall Man, who we learn was once a kindly undertaker named Jebediah Morningside around the time of the Civil War. He somehow invents the tuning fork/portal thing, but how exactly this turns him into the evil Tall Man is never explained - nor is anything else.
A second thread follows Reggie, who wanders around, encounters a beautiful woman, and is once again sexually frustrated. I know you're saying you've seen that before, but trust me, this time the end is...interesting.
As for Jody, the dead/undead/possible impostor brother, he keeps popping in and out, "guiding" Mike, but never really being much help, and generally just adding to the confusion.
Without giving away any spoilers, I'll just say nothing is ever really resolved or explained.
That said, there is a certain "charm" to the movie. The atmosphere and the cinematography are pretty good, and most scenes alone work pretty well - if only they would all tie together into something even remotely coherent.
All in all, this has to be one of the most random, confusing, non-sequitur movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot, but I have to say, it's fun to watch just for the jaw-dropping "WTF!?!" of it.
My rating (as a bad movie): 5/5
Netflix: No
Wow, just... wow.
The first Phantasm was a classic. No one's quite sure why, because let's face it, the plot was pretty silly, but for some reason, it was just iconic. The second and third were OK, nothing great, but entertaining.
This one was clearly conceived as the magnum opus, where everything would be "explained". Of course that's not what happens...
The first problem is of course to get out of the certain doom at the end of the last movie. If you recall, Mike (still called "boy" in his mid-30s) is in the process of being changed into some sort of hybrid silver ball/alien thingy, and Reggie is pinned to a wall by like a hundred of the killer spheres. Mike apparently just walked away, and the Tall Man inexplicably lets Reggie go - and then spends the rest of the movie trying to kill him. I don't know, maybe he's like a cat playing with its food.
After that, it's just a confusing jumble. The main thread follows Mike as he develops super powers and travels back in time to find the origin of the Tall Man, who we learn was once a kindly undertaker named Jebediah Morningside around the time of the Civil War. He somehow invents the tuning fork/portal thing, but how exactly this turns him into the evil Tall Man is never explained - nor is anything else.
A second thread follows Reggie, who wanders around, encounters a beautiful woman, and is once again sexually frustrated. I know you're saying you've seen that before, but trust me, this time the end is...interesting.
As for Jody, the dead/undead/possible impostor brother, he keeps popping in and out, "guiding" Mike, but never really being much help, and generally just adding to the confusion.
Without giving away any spoilers, I'll just say nothing is ever really resolved or explained.
That said, there is a certain "charm" to the movie. The atmosphere and the cinematography are pretty good, and most scenes alone work pretty well - if only they would all tie together into something even remotely coherent.
All in all, this has to be one of the most random, confusing, non-sequitur movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot, but I have to say, it's fun to watch just for the jaw-dropping "WTF!?!" of it.
Monday, May 19, 2014
It's a Disaster (2012)
IMDB: here
My rating (as a good movie): 4/5
Netflix?: yes
Interesting mash-up of genres that works surprisingly well.
The movie opens like a fairly standard rom-com. We gather that a couple has recently started dating, and the woman is advancing their relationship to the point of inviting him to a regular "couples brunch" with her circle of friends. The first exchanges at the door establish that this is going to be an "awkward" gathering.
Of course, you know if you read the description that things are going to change dramatically, and pretty soon this unlikely group of people is facing the end of the world together.
It's quite entertaining and definitely worth watching. I'm knocking once the novelty of the plot wears off, it does start to drag a bit in the middle, and they fall back on some pretty well worn paths. For example, if it's a spoiler that it turns out that some of the characters have slept with each others partners, then it's probably because you've never seen a movie before.
But don't worry, it rallies in the end and finishes strong. Some people might not like the ending, but I thought it worked very well.
My rating (as a good movie): 4/5
Netflix?: yes
Interesting mash-up of genres that works surprisingly well.
The movie opens like a fairly standard rom-com. We gather that a couple has recently started dating, and the woman is advancing their relationship to the point of inviting him to a regular "couples brunch" with her circle of friends. The first exchanges at the door establish that this is going to be an "awkward" gathering.
Of course, you know if you read the description that things are going to change dramatically, and pretty soon this unlikely group of people is facing the end of the world together.
It's quite entertaining and definitely worth watching. I'm knocking once the novelty of the plot wears off, it does start to drag a bit in the middle, and they fall back on some pretty well worn paths. For example, if it's a spoiler that it turns out that some of the characters have slept with each others partners, then it's probably because you've never seen a movie before.
But don't worry, it rallies in the end and finishes strong. Some people might not like the ending, but I thought it worked very well.
Rapture-Palooza (2013)
IMDB: here
Rating (as a good movie): 5/5 (good movie)
Netflix?: Yes
This is certainly one of my biggest successes when it comes to random Netflix picks.My first thought was that they copied the idea from This is the End, but it turns out that both came out at almost exactly the same time (this movie actually came out a few days before). I guess two people had the idea of making a rapture-themed comedy at the same time. What are the odds?I loved both movies, but this is a very different take on the same idea. Whereas the tone and the humor in This is the End were rather manic, the humor in this movie is of the deadpan "So this is the apocalypse?" variety, and it works very well, at least for me. On balance, I think I may have liked this one a little bit more.It sounds strange, but some of the humor comes from the fact that they stick a bit closer to the Book or Revelation, and there are a lot of "This really doesn't make any sense." sort of jokes. Anyway, it worked for me.I didn't find it as vulgar as some people seem to have, but maybe my bar is high. It goes without saying that it's extremely blasphemous, so if you take the (to put it bluntly) Revelation nonsense seriously, it may not be the movie for you. Otherwise...
Rating (as a good movie): 5/5 (good movie)
Netflix?: Yes
This is certainly one of my biggest successes when it comes to random Netflix picks.My first thought was that they copied the idea from This is the End, but it turns out that both came out at almost exactly the same time (this movie actually came out a few days before). I guess two people had the idea of making a rapture-themed comedy at the same time. What are the odds?I loved both movies, but this is a very different take on the same idea. Whereas the tone and the humor in This is the End were rather manic, the humor in this movie is of the deadpan "So this is the apocalypse?" variety, and it works very well, at least for me. On balance, I think I may have liked this one a little bit more.It sounds strange, but some of the humor comes from the fact that they stick a bit closer to the Book or Revelation, and there are a lot of "This really doesn't make any sense." sort of jokes. Anyway, it worked for me.I didn't find it as vulgar as some people seem to have, but maybe my bar is high. It goes without saying that it's extremely blasphemous, so if you take the (to put it bluntly) Revelation nonsense seriously, it may not be the movie for you. Otherwise...
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Dalai Lama Rant
OK, this might offend some people, but I promised my son I would write it, so here it is...
I've always found the fascination of Western liberals with the Dalai Lama to be somewhat tiresome and annoying, particularly coming as it does from people who claim to value democracy and religious freedom, since he represents neither of those things. On the other hand, in the unlikely event you actually are a Tibetan Buddhist, please don't read this.
Don't get me wrong, he looks adorable and he says cool things that look great on posters. Celebrities really like him, and we trust their judgment in all things - vaccinations, for example. Plus, he's working to get those damn Chinese out of Tibet and return the legitimate government, and that's a really good cause, right? I really don't know. You probably don't know either. Maybe even Bono doesn't know, in which case we're basically rudderless.
First of all, let's be honest about exactly what the Dalai Lama is: for all intents and purposes, he's deposed royalty, pure and simple. The world is full of deposed royalty. We don't normally celebrate them - except for the royalty we deposed ourselves (locally anyway) a couple of centuries ago, but that's a subject for another rant.
Whether Tibet is better or worse under Chinese rule is a matter of intense debate, even among scholars who actually know something about it. For everyone else, it's a war of propaganda. Chinese propaganda says that they "liberated" the country from a tyrannical system, and the Tibetans are better off now. What we have to realize is that what groups like "Free Tibet" say is also just propaganda with with a somewhat different agenda. The Tibetan government-in-exile is the former elite ruling class, so of course they don't like the new bosses. They've been very good about getting their version of propaganda out at least partially because they had a lot of help from the American CIA in doing so. Haven't you ever wondered why people seem to care so much more about Tibet than other troubled places on Earth? That's not an accident. It goes without saying that the CIA never gave half a shit about the Tibetan people, but supporting the Dalai Lama pissed off Chairman Mao and that was enough for them.
What is indisputable is that the popular image of pre-1951 Tibet as some sort of peaceful Shangri-La is simply horse shit. It was a primitive theocratic feudal system ruled by a monk class with the Dalai Lama (or his regent) at the top as the absolute ruler. Most people were "serfs", who had no education, healthcare, electricity, or any human rights to speak of. There is endless debate about whether "serf" meant "slave" or just "someone too poor to do anything else", but that seems like kind of an academic distinction to me. The average life expectancy was 35 years and the infant mortality rate was a whopping 43%! As for religion, it was their way or the highway - um, did I mention there were no highways? In any event, the notion that this is a society we should in any way revere or (God forbid!) emulate is just plain ludicrous.
Of course, the Dalai Lama has promised things would be very different if he returned to Tibet. He'd have democracy, freedom of religion, human rights, rainbows and ponies for everyone, but he can promise anything he wants because it's never going to happen. I'd do a really kick-ass job of ruling Tibet, too, if they just gave me a chance. The fact is, we have absolutely no idea how he would have ruled if he had remained in in charge. He'd spent his whole life being told he was effectively a deity incarnate, and such people have rarely shown a pattern of empathy.
So how did little Lhamo Dondrub rise to be Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and the subject of this rant, anyway? He was selected at the age of two, a few years after the 13th Dalai Lama had died (he is a reincarnation, after all). Of course, at two, he wasn't elected or chosen based on qualifications or achievements. He was picked using what can only be called "superstitious mumbo-jumbo". That's the "legitimate government" people want to restore. Say what you want about the Pope, but at least he had to pay his dues and work his way up the corporate ladder.
While he was growing up, he chilled in relative luxury while Tibet was ruled by a regent (actually two regents who fought bitterly over the position). He formally became the Dalai Lama at the age of 15 - just in time to hand Tibet over the Chinese. For about nine years, he worked "with" the Chinese. To what extent he was a willing collaborator is debated, but he certainly didn't actively oppose them. He was also looking for a way out for himself. When he visited India in 1956, he asked if he could, you know maybe not return to his beloved country, but Nehru said it was a bad idea. In 1959, there was an uprising in Tibet, and the Dalai Lama, fearing for his safety, fled - with some help from the CIA, who supported him until 1972, when Nixon thought it might cause problems for his efforts in China. He's been dining with royalty and rock stars ever since.
So really, his big achievement was to leave his country when things got rough. He's been campaigning for Tibet and supporting guerrilla actions against the Chinese since then, but this has accomplished precisely dick.
Look, I'm sure he's a very nice guy, and in his place I'm pretty sure that in his place I would have done my best to save my own ass, too. He was, after all, just a kid at the time. On the other hand, what's the reason to celebrate this? What would we think of Gandhi if instead of risking his life to stand up to the British, he traveled the globe telling everyone what assholes they were? What about Martin Luther King? He could have had a pretty good life safely giving lectures about the South at liberal universities in the North, but he didn't choose to do that.
So that's about it. Flame on if you will.
I've always found the fascination of Western liberals with the Dalai Lama to be somewhat tiresome and annoying, particularly coming as it does from people who claim to value democracy and religious freedom, since he represents neither of those things. On the other hand, in the unlikely event you actually are a Tibetan Buddhist, please don't read this.
Don't get me wrong, he looks adorable and he says cool things that look great on posters. Celebrities really like him, and we trust their judgment in all things - vaccinations, for example. Plus, he's working to get those damn Chinese out of Tibet and return the legitimate government, and that's a really good cause, right? I really don't know. You probably don't know either. Maybe even Bono doesn't know, in which case we're basically rudderless.
First of all, let's be honest about exactly what the Dalai Lama is: for all intents and purposes, he's deposed royalty, pure and simple. The world is full of deposed royalty. We don't normally celebrate them - except for the royalty we deposed ourselves (locally anyway) a couple of centuries ago, but that's a subject for another rant.
I have no idea what the term "legitimate government" means for a place that's never had anything even remotely resembling democracy. Historically it means "the guys with the best army", so that would be the Chinese. In some cases however, it means "Guys your government hates a bit less less than the other guys", which favors the Dalai Lama - or at least it did for awhile. But what's best for the Tibetan people?
Whether Tibet is better or worse under Chinese rule is a matter of intense debate, even among scholars who actually know something about it. For everyone else, it's a war of propaganda. Chinese propaganda says that they "liberated" the country from a tyrannical system, and the Tibetans are better off now. What we have to realize is that what groups like "Free Tibet" say is also just propaganda with with a somewhat different agenda. The Tibetan government-in-exile is the former elite ruling class, so of course they don't like the new bosses. They've been very good about getting their version of propaganda out at least partially because they had a lot of help from the American CIA in doing so. Haven't you ever wondered why people seem to care so much more about Tibet than other troubled places on Earth? That's not an accident. It goes without saying that the CIA never gave half a shit about the Tibetan people, but supporting the Dalai Lama pissed off Chairman Mao and that was enough for them.
What is indisputable is that the popular image of pre-1951 Tibet as some sort of peaceful Shangri-La is simply horse shit. It was a primitive theocratic feudal system ruled by a monk class with the Dalai Lama (or his regent) at the top as the absolute ruler. Most people were "serfs", who had no education, healthcare, electricity, or any human rights to speak of. There is endless debate about whether "serf" meant "slave" or just "someone too poor to do anything else", but that seems like kind of an academic distinction to me. The average life expectancy was 35 years and the infant mortality rate was a whopping 43%! As for religion, it was their way or the highway - um, did I mention there were no highways? In any event, the notion that this is a society we should in any way revere or (God forbid!) emulate is just plain ludicrous.
Of course, the Dalai Lama has promised things would be very different if he returned to Tibet. He'd have democracy, freedom of religion, human rights, rainbows and ponies for everyone, but he can promise anything he wants because it's never going to happen. I'd do a really kick-ass job of ruling Tibet, too, if they just gave me a chance. The fact is, we have absolutely no idea how he would have ruled if he had remained in in charge. He'd spent his whole life being told he was effectively a deity incarnate, and such people have rarely shown a pattern of empathy.
So how did little Lhamo Dondrub rise to be Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and the subject of this rant, anyway? He was selected at the age of two, a few years after the 13th Dalai Lama had died (he is a reincarnation, after all). Of course, at two, he wasn't elected or chosen based on qualifications or achievements. He was picked using what can only be called "superstitious mumbo-jumbo". That's the "legitimate government" people want to restore. Say what you want about the Pope, but at least he had to pay his dues and work his way up the corporate ladder.
While he was growing up, he chilled in relative luxury while Tibet was ruled by a regent (actually two regents who fought bitterly over the position). He formally became the Dalai Lama at the age of 15 - just in time to hand Tibet over the Chinese. For about nine years, he worked "with" the Chinese. To what extent he was a willing collaborator is debated, but he certainly didn't actively oppose them. He was also looking for a way out for himself. When he visited India in 1956, he asked if he could, you know maybe not return to his beloved country, but Nehru said it was a bad idea. In 1959, there was an uprising in Tibet, and the Dalai Lama, fearing for his safety, fled - with some help from the CIA, who supported him until 1972, when Nixon thought it might cause problems for his efforts in China. He's been dining with royalty and rock stars ever since.
So really, his big achievement was to leave his country when things got rough. He's been campaigning for Tibet and supporting guerrilla actions against the Chinese since then, but this has accomplished precisely dick.
Look, I'm sure he's a very nice guy, and in his place I'm pretty sure that in his place I would have done my best to save my own ass, too. He was, after all, just a kid at the time. On the other hand, what's the reason to celebrate this? What would we think of Gandhi if instead of risking his life to stand up to the British, he traveled the globe telling everyone what assholes they were? What about Martin Luther King? He could have had a pretty good life safely giving lectures about the South at liberal universities in the North, but he didn't choose to do that.
So that's about it. Flame on if you will.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Troll 2 (1990)/Best Worst Movie (2009)
This is an unusual case. I'm reviewing these two movies together, because they really have to be seen as a pair to be fully understood and appreciated. "Troll 2" is unquestionably a top contender in the "so bad it's good" category, while "Best Worst Movie" - the documentary made about "Troll 2" - is genuinely interesting and entertaining.
Troll 2 (1990)
IMDB entry: here
My rating (as a bad movie): 5/5
There's so much bad in this movie that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's start with the title. Based on the title, you'd guess it was the sequel to "Troll", the 1986 movie starting Michael Moriarty, Shelly Hack, and Sony Bono, but you'd be wrong. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the former movie, but there aren't even any trolls in it! The title was just a shameless attempt to leverage the moderate success of the earlier movie.
The plot, such as it is, involves the Waits family moving to the town of Nilbog (spell it backwards, get it?). The young boy is visited by the ghost of his dead grandfather, who warns him to beware of the goblins (not trolls!!) in the town. The ghost grandfather also has some magic powers that are enough to help the boy out a bit and get him into embarrassing situations, but never quite enough to actually solve a problem. It's sort of like Bewitched or I Dream of Jeanie in that regard.
The goblins' game is to trick people into eating some sort of goop that turns them into plants. Why? Because the goblins are vegetarians! Turning people into plants allows the goblins to eat them. This was apparently a way for the the director's wife, who co-wrote the movie, to vent her annoyance at her vegetarian friends.
The dialog is terrible, because it was largely written by the director, an Italian whose English is so bad that he has to be interviewed through an interpreter. Add some horrific acting and low budget special effects, and you have a truly memorable bad movie.
I could go on, but you really have to see it to believe it.
I could go on, but you really have to see it to believe it.
The movie vanished into obscurity for some time, until someone stumbled upon it a few years ago, and it has since become something of a cult phenomenon in the fine tradition of Rocky Horror Picture Show.
The Best Worst Movie (2009)
IMDB entry: here
My rating (as a good documentary): 5/5
For the first few minutes, you may think you have the wrong movie. It seems to be some sort of documentary about a small town and one of its prominent citizens, George Hardy. After a few residents sing the George's praises, the director asks innocently, "Did you know George once made a movie?". No one did. It seems George doesn't talk about it much.
It turns out that 19 years earlier, George Hardy played Michael Waits, the father in Troll 2. As for the child who talked to his dead grandfather, he was played by a young Michael Stephenson, who grew up to make this documentary. You can see an example of their acting ability as well as the movie's most memorable line here.
George had been an aspiring actor when he made Troll 2, but that experience convinced him to give up acting and become a dentist. If you've seen the former movie (or even just watched the clip above), I'm sure you'll agree that this was a wise decision.
The documentary focuses primarily on George's experiences as he revisits his involvement in that film and discovers the cult phenomenon it has become. We also meet some of the other actors and catch up on what they've been up to since.
The documentary focuses primarily on George's experiences as he revisits his involvement in that film and discovers the cult phenomenon it has become. We also meet some of the other actors and catch up on what they've been up to since.
This movie works on a couple of levels. On the one hand, it's great fun to rewatch the worst parts of the first movie and to explore the entertaining world of bad B-movie fandom, but on the other hand it's actually a very effective documentary with some surprising depth. It follows George's journey as he initially embraces the new found notoriety of Troll 2, but eventually becomes disillusioned when he realized that for many people, a bit part in a B-movie was the height of their achievement, and they've spent the rest of their life going to "cons" of one sort or another. On assumes he returned to his "normal" life with a new found appreciation for it.
So make it a double feature night and watch both!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)